| > Pack has to go through an order of magnitude more charge cycles than a phone I don't think this is true. Most electric cars are re-charged once a day, which is about the same as a phone. > Must operate in a much wider variety of conditions than a phone Also, not really true if you look at the range of temperature and conditions an iPhone is rated for. (Including water resistance. Mine went through a washing machine cycle and came out fine.) > iPhones don't need to pass crash tests iPhones protected highly delicate components against hard impact on concrete. That requires similar engineering delicacy as protecting human meat in car crashes. > Brakes... suspension The complexity of the accelerometers and camera systems deal with similar engineering challenges of the same quality. > iPhones weight orders of magnitude less than a car Does weighing less make something harder to engineer? If anything making complex machines that are feather-weight seems more challenging. Certainly you'd acknowledge that smartphones are harder to build than mainframes, even though the latter is an order of magnitude heavier. > Regulatory requirements are way less stringent for phones This is true. But given Apple's unrelenting engineering excellence, there's very little chance they'll design a substandard or unsafe product. Therefore regulatory compliance is merely an issue of hiring enough lawyers. Apple has plenty of cash to hire lawyers. Certainly much more than GM. > Lights iPhones definitely have lights. |
And yet, that massive gulf is the whole point here.
Apple is treading in 95% unfamiliar waters, but the company has proven time and again this is its secret power. They'd never made portable music players before; they'd never made phones before; they'd never made watches before. A car is simply the ultimate expression of this, bringing to bear all of Apple's experience in entering a market where they have no experience.